[TheAdamAndChe]

Interestingly, the site rules happen to create communities that are almost entirely advertiser-friendly. What a complete and total coincidence!

[altcognito]

I should have asked what is "advertiser friendly" as opposed to not advertiser friendly.

I mean, advertiser friendly websites do better because people who like to make money using websites participate and drive up engagement. Shocker!

On this website, the "advertisers" are software development firms.

This entire line of argument is weakly defined if not started in bad faith.

update: I get where the OP is coming from now -- more oriented towards concern over consumerism and astroturfing, less concern trolling over politicization etc...

[TheAdamAndChe]

> what is "advertiser friendly" as opposed to not advertiser friendly.

This is a good question, as it gets to the heart of the conversation IMO. Thinking here, things that are advertiser friendly would probably both trigger a strong sense of identity (which can be exploited by advertising campaigns) without alienating other groups. Many conservative viewpoints push for limits to identity, seeing diversity of viewpoints as antithetical to what makes a good life, hence why many conservative viewpoints aren't as monetizable.

That's just me thinking out loud. If you see any flaws in my thinking or have any better theories, I'd be happy to read them.

> advertiser friendly websites do better because people who like to make money using websites participate and drive up engagement.

This is called astroturfing, and embodies what I consider to be the worst of Reddit. It provides people with a sense of community, but in reality it's just corporations trying to push a narrative to make money.

My conversation was started in good faith, btw. Not to say that my logic was/is flawless though.

[namdnay]

Like the communist subreddits?